The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1887-04-04
The cloture.

what is the clottTe 2" is question fire.
quently asked since the English Tories fore
ed the coercion bill through its first reading
in the British House of Commons on Friday,
In spite of the efforts of Gladstone and Par
nell. The word itself is hardly less novel to
English than to American ears. The pro-
ceeding which 1t describes is much more an
American than British institution. The
cloture in England and France is much the
same thing as the previous question" in
America. 1t is means of shutting off de-
bate when the majority wish to come to a
vote on the pending question. Nearly every
one is familiar with this form of procedure,
which is exemplifed very well in the Maine
House Of Representatives. After question
has been debated, as some member thinks
long enough, although the talking seems
likely to continue, that member calls for the
previous question" Then, if one-ffth of
the members present indicate, by rising, that
they wish the previous question" put,
the Speaker entertains it. There may be
debate on the advisability Of putting
the question, in which speakers are
limited to five minutes each. Ordinar-
lily this debate. is short, and the Speak
er puts the question to vote with
words something like the following: SIS it
the will of the House that the main question
(the question ON which it is hoped to stop
debate) now be put" If the House vote in
the affirmative the Speaker must put the
main question without delay, the attempt of
any member to continue the debate being
promptly suppressed as ont of order. Thus
fx.ff1I he l...AA 4 Al.
GUS question" is to stop debate and bring
question to vote. 1t is evident also that in
the hands or an INSCRIPTIONS and united
majority it might be used tyrannically to
strangle debate on question. The National
House Of Representatives has used the
previous question" for years, although the
United States Senate, on the other hand
has incorporated in its rules no such pro-
vision, the fewness and good sense of the
members being relied on to close the debate
at proper time. But the example of the
Senate is not followed to any extent by
State legislatures or other parliamentary
bodies. The cl0ture is and has for years
been familiar to Americans, though under
the name of the previous question"
In England, ON the other hand, the clotme
is novelty For centuries the privilege of
debate in the House of Commons was unre-
stricted. The question was not put so long
as anyone wanted to speak. In case of any
studied attempt to prolong debate there
was no termination to such proceedings ex-
cept the physical exhaustion of the contest
ants. The privileges of the minority were
studiously regarded. This was the custom
OF Parliament in 1877 when the seven men,
bers from Ireland began their systematic
obstruction of business by talking and max
ing retarding motions and divisions. Justin
Mccarthy was one of the early obstruction
lists, and the methods which they used to
delay the decision of questions were admir-
ably described by him to an audience in this
city last winter. Parnell and O'Donnell
alone spoke hundreds Of times and offered
an avalanche of amendments. The session
Of July oath was thus prolonged from 4.3O
p. m. to 215 the next morning; that of the
18th from 40 p. m. to 6 o'clock the next
morning. Yet it was in accordance with the
traditions Of Parliament, and the majority
bore with the seven members. During the
sessions Of 1878 and 1879 this obstruction
was continued, with this result, that the
ocooiOho WCAc hnAC uhplOuuIblfC VI any
general legislation; yet Parnell and his fol-
lowers had acted within the rules. In 1881
ireland, was so much agitated that Mr..
Gladstone, who was then Premier, brought
forward three coercion bills. Parnell and
his followers determined to stave them off
by obstruction" that is, by preventing a
vote. Sir Henry Brand was then Speaker.
The discussion began at p. m, Jan. %,
the members from Ireland being in a most
opstreperous mood. The session continued
until p. m. of the 10th. 1t next commenced
on the 9th and adjourned on the 2Sth.
The next session began on Monday, the 31st,
at A p. M, and continued until 925 a. m.
Wednesday. Then the patience of the
House and of the country could stand it no
longer, and the Speaker declared: "a new
and exceptional proceeding is imperiously
demanded, and am convinced that / shall
better respond to the intention Of the House
to refuse permission to any more speakers,
and to put the question to a vote" The
question was put and the coercion bills
passed to their first reading. The act of the
speaker was really revolutionary, INSANE
toned by rule or precedent. Parnell and his
followers denounced it so boisterously that
they were elected from the House by force.
Then the House passed rule giving the
Speaker exceptional powers. But the ex-
ceptlonal powers were not sufficient, and in
1882 when Mr.. Gladstone wished to pass the
Crimes Act, the last coercion law, he secured
the adoption of new rules of procedure, one
clause of which instituted the ctotlTe as
part of British Parliamentary practice:
When it shall appear TO Mr.. Speaker, or to the
chairman Of the ways and means in a committee
Of the whole house, during any debate, that the
subject has been adequately discussed, and that
1t Is the evident sense OF the House, or OF the COM